Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:41 am
Time: 12:41 am
Results for ex-offenders rights
2 results foundAuthor: Mauer, Marc Title: A Lifetime of Punishment: The Impact of the Felony Drug Ban on Welfare Benefits Summary: In his first State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it." Nearly four years later, on August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed legislation to do exactly that: the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). PRWORA's reforms were expansive and controversial for several reasons, including its implementation of a revised cash assistance program- Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)- which limited the length of time eligible families could receive benefits and established work requirements for recipients. In addition, PRWORA made substantial changes to the operation of the federal food stamp program, which has since been renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Perhaps because of the general debate surrounding PRWORA's changes to cash assistance and food stamp programs, one significant provision of the law initially received little attention: along with other federal legislation related to the "war on drugs," PRWORA imposed a denial of federal benefits to people convicted in state or federal courts of felony drug offenses. The ban is imposed for no other offenses but drug crimes. Its provisions that subject individuals who are otherwise eligible for receipt of SNAP or TANF benefits to a lifetime disqualification applies to all states unless they act to opt out of the ban. Despite the magnitude of this change, the provision received only two minutes of debate after it was introduced on the Senate floor-one minute for Republicans and one minute for Democrats. It was then unanimously adopted by a voice vote. The brevity of Congressional discussion on the felony drug conviction ban makes it difficult to know the intent of Congress in adopting this policy, but the record that does exist suggests the provision was intended to be punitive and "tough on crime." As Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), the sponsor of the amendment, argued, "if we are serious about our drug laws, we ought not to give people welfare benefits who are violating the Nation's drug laws." Conspicuously absent from the brief debate over this provision was any discussion of whether the lifetime ban for individuals with felony drug offenses would advance the general objectives of welfare reform. In an effort to assess the impact of this policy, this report provides an analysis of the ban on receipt of TANF benefits for individuals with felony drug convictions. First, we survey the current status of the ban at the state level, including actions by legislatures to opt out of the ban in full or in part. Next, we produce estimates of the number of women potentially affected by the ban in those states that apply it in full. We then assess the rationale for the ban and conclude that, for a multiplicity of reasons, the ban not only fails to accomplish its putative goals, but also is likely to negatively impact public health and safety. Finally,we offer policy recommendations for future treatment of the ban on receipt of food stamps and cash assistance for individuals convicted of felony drug crimes. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2013. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2013 at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_A%20Lifetime%20of%20Punishment.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_A%20Lifetime%20of%20Punishment.pdf Shelf Number: 131707 Keywords: Drug Offenders (U.S.)Ex-Offenders RightsFelony OffendersWelfare BenefitsWelfare Reform |
Author: Subramanian, Ram Title: Relief in Sight? States Rethink the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction, 2009-2014 Summary: As this report makes clear, the legal and life-restricting consequences of having a criminal conviction are many, varied, and often bewildering. They can impact the most fundamental necessities of life - like a job, a place to live, and education - and affect not just the individuals with convictions but also their families. In some jurisdictions, they are onerous and numerous; you have to wonder what their creators thought they would accomplish in terms of enhancing public safety. The breadth and reach of collateral consequences are indeed wide when one considers the range of behaviors that are considered felonies in most states: from possession of drugs found to indicate an "intent to distribute" or stealing $500 worth of goods from a garage to more clearly serious offenses, such as stalking, armed robbery, and home invasion. Yet they are all treated the same in terms of consequences long after sentence completion. No one would argue against banning those convicted of identity theft or fraud from working in a bank, but there are many other kinds of employment opportunities for which they may be suited and should be permitted to pursue. This report documents the efforts in many states to revaluate some of these consequences, while making clear that many of the recently enacted reforms are easily undermined, worked around, or ignored. Even more frequently, the fixes are relatively insignificant or apply to such small group that they don't begin to address the problem. Collateral consequences are, of course, just one piece of the problem. The existing system of proliferating criminal penalties and attendant collateral consequences not only remains in place, it continues to grow - for example, with hundreds of new federal offenses created over the last several years. Too often we criminalize behavior that decades ago would not have been. We add on specific category or penalty enhancements for everything from where a crime was committed to the status of the victim or intended victim. Intent is equated with commission. Too many of our criminal laws are written to respond to behavior that should be dealt with (and would more effectively be dealt with) outside the criminal justice system. And evidence on the impact of public safety is mixed or limited at best. Other laws are written in ways that do not distinguish between truly harmful acts and those that only approximate those acts as exemplified by the overly broad definition of "violent", ensnaring people who may only possess a weapon in commission of an offense, even when it was not used, or never intended to be used. And finally, too often we respond to many members of our communities who are primarily sick, poor, homeless, or unable to care for themselves or their families with the hammer of the criminal justice system. And then we continue to hammer them long after they have satisfied our need for retribution. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/states-rethink-collateral-consequences-report-v3.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/states-rethink-collateral-consequences-report-v3.pdf Shelf Number: 134587 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal RecordsEx-Offenders EmploymentEx-Offenders Rights |